Handgun Stopping Power

I took a break and went into the living room, where I found the Missus. I was telling her about the article and the interesting, to me, results. With her usual matter of fact dismissal she said, "Well, shot placement is more important than what gun you use." My bubble was popped. I was explaining the finer points of the old .38 SPL vs .45 ACP debates, and she had summarized it all in one sentence. That of course was the conclusion I had come to, but she had short circuited my "brilliant" discussion. Trying to save face, I added that there is more to it. If you believe yourself capable of cold bloodedly placing a shot at just the right point in the heat of battle, with your adrenalin pumping, your perceptions distorted, and possibly while severely injured, then shot placement is everything. But I don't believe most people know this about themselves, and I suspect most believe when they are in grave circumstances, there could be a few wild shots, or shots to parts of the body that may not stop the attack. So it is not unreasonable to search for an extra advantage; to seek an edge. Couple that with the well known tendency of people to take the easy path of purchasing their self defence rather that of taking the harder path of training, and you have the makings of a debate. But as Ellifritz has shown, within the range of defensive handgun rounds available, there is no advantage.

Click to read more ...

Liberty Slowly Creeps Northward

Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation have struck again, this time in Maryland. Fox News has the story. From Fox News:

U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg wrote that states are allowed some leeway in deciding the way residents exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms, but Maryland's objective was to limit the number of firearms that individuals could carry, effectively creating a rationing system that rewarded those who provided the right answer for wanting to own a gun. "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights," Legg wrote. "The right's existence is all the reason he needs."

Marylanders have been fighting this for a long time. It seems that at every level of State government, the attitude has been to fight tooth and nail to maintain its supposed monopoly on the use of force, but refuse to provide security for citizens who may be danger. The hypocrisy of the State's position has been breathtaking in its chutzpah.  While the Governor of Maryland goes about with armed body guards like an emperor, and State and local police are armed to the teeth, the average citizen can not usually get a permit,even if a woman has had documented death threats against her.  A "good and substantial" reason typically has not been good and substantial enough.

Typical of Marylanders' frustration with the law in Maryland pertaining to carry permits are the commenters to Red Maryland. I especially liked this comment from warpmine:

The CCW permit for criminals is one that is a Don't ask don't tell honorary law of the jungle. Criminals generally use their weapons for aggression rather than self protection and when they hunt, it's usually human beings that are the bounty. Maryland liberal logic mandates that only criminals should have the opportunity to carry a fire arm forcing the law abiding citizens to fear for their lives.

Having lost, the State Attorney General plans to appeal.  I don't have any insight into what the AG's strategy or thinking may be, but I suspect it is a delaying tactic.  But remember that a right delayed is a right denied.  How many more victims will the State have on its conscience as it tries to maintain the fiction that they, and they alone, have a monopoly on force in the State.

Update:  Dave Kopel has more analysis over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

The Slippery Slope was Real After All

Fay Voshell has an article up at American Thinker on March 1, 2012 entitled Infanticide On Demand that expresses the many fears pro-life people have had about the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. It appears that the "slippery slope" argument was real after all. Once you claim the "right" to take human life without cause, where are the boundaries to stop you from taking any human life without cause?

Click to read more ...

Gun Control Laws are Unjust

The late Robert Boatman died in 2009. But, before he did, he wrote some powerful words on guns, and the use and carrying thereof. His The Constitutional Right and Social Obligation to Carry a Gun is a stinging indictment of politicians and media supporters who try to limit the carrying of guns, and a rebuke to those Americans who shirk their duty to their family and community.

Click to read more ...

Rest in Uneasy Peace Long-Gun Registry

The Canadian Parliament has repealed the Long Gun Registry, as reported in the National Review by John Lott and Gary Mauser in an article published February 20, 2012 entitled Death of a Long-Gun Registry. The passage of the repeal represents a small victory for gun owners, and a small set back for the gun grabbers. But left in place are all the goofy laws that dictate which weapons one may own. An example is provided in the comments to this over at Sebastian's new blog Shall Not Be Questioned. Lott and Mauser make the point that the Long-Gun Registry cost Canadian taxpayers $2.7 Billion over its 14 year life while producing zero results. That is, if the results were to be a reduction in crime.

Click to read more ...